One Solution To The Gay Marriage Issue

[trplnkl]

My sister is gay. She and her spouse could quite frankly care less whether their relationship is labeled by others as a "marriage" or a "civil union". What matters to them is the fact that they cannot take advantage of the Federal tax rate available to legally married couples, nor are they eligible to benefit from each others Social Security even though they are paying the same amount into the system. And these benefits are arbitrarily denied to them solely due to the fact that neither of them owns a penis. That is discrimination, plain and simple.

What needs to happen is that civil unions should be granted the same financial benefits as marriages. Then whatever name you decide to attach to that relationship becomes irrelevant.

The USA should wake up and recognize that even a homosexual marriage is a simple contract between two people.Two honest tax paying members of society that should have the same rights as everyone that is "normal".The cost of a marriage licence is pure profit to the government.Whats the problem?

We are on the same page here. As I said in another post here, there has to be a way to give civil unions the same benefits, etc. as a conventional marriage. This should keep both side (too bad there has to be two sides). There are way too many people in the USA (right or wrong) that are opposed to same gender marriage to hope SGMs will be readily accepted. With the civil union being a binding contract, as a marriage is, then both sides get what they want. I can see some possible problems with this also, but probably not many more than with married couples with a possible "revolving door" type of thing. The income tax situation is a year to year thing and could be handled much like marriage. The shared SS thing is a different story though. Please don't take the nest statement as a degradation of gay people, but it is a reality. With many gays, the commitment isn't a long term (I'm aware it isn't with straight couple either), adding the complicated sharing of SS benefits could be horrendous.

DS, I will challenge the pure profit idea of marriage licenses fees, the gov agencies have to pay people to process, print and file all those documents.

 

[bbsam]

In other words, separate but equal would once again be unequal.

 

[trplnkl]

In other words, separate but equal would once again be unequal.

nope, they would be equal in every way, except in the label given to the union.

 

[browndevil]

My sister is gay. She and her spouse could quite frankly care less whether their relationship is labeled by others as a "marriage" or a "civil union". What matters to them is the fact that they cannot take advantage of the Federal tax rate available to legally married couples, nor are they eligible to benefit from each others Social Security even though they are paying the same amount into the system. And these benefits are arbitrarily denied to them solely due to the fact that neither of them owns a penis. That is discrimination, plain and simple.
Seems your sister and her spouse is a victim of taxation without representation. How much more un American is that?

What needs to happen is that civil unions should be granted the same financial benefits as marriages. Then whatever name you decide to attach to that relationship becomes irrelevant.

 

[wkmac]

We are on the same page here. As I said in another post here, there has to be a way to give civil unions the same benefits, etc. as a conventional marriage. This should keep both side (too bad there has to be two sides). There are way too many people in the USA (right or wrong) that are opposed to same gender marriage to hope SGMs will be readily accepted. With the civil union being a binding contract, as a marriage is, then both sides get what they want. I can see some possible problems with this also, but probably not many more than with married couples with a possible "revolving door" type of thing. The income tax situation is a year to year thing and could be handled much like marriage. The shared SS thing is a different story though. Please don't take the nest statement as a degradation of gay people, but it is a reality. With many gays, the commitment isn't a long term (I'm aware it isn't with straight couple either), adding the complicated sharing of SS benefits could be horrendous.

DS, I will challenge the pure profit idea of marriage licenses fees, the gov agencies have to pay people to process, print and file all those documents.

The solution is to get the gov't completely out of it to begin with. Even most gay people understand that marriage as an institution is mostly a religious ceremony and prior to gov't intervention in it, was a purely private matter and as it pertains to the state issued no privilege as a result of marriage. So-called progressives of the time feared not only interracial marriage but even some feared a watering down of protestant christian customs as an influx of eastern European catholics immigrated to America in the 19th century. This was a driving force behind the marriage license as it was in many respects with mandatory public education as well.

That same crowd of elites also ascribed to the then growing science of Eugenics but were set back by the actions of a certain tyrannt with mustache that wrecks havoc in the early to mid 20th century. And some of you see the word progressive and think in modern terms but if you read of it and who followed it in it's origins in the 19th century, you might not like what you read as some are your heros!


Also the marriage license, etc. is a 100% pure profit business because even if not one person comes in, the taxpayer still foots the bill for the entire operation. Now if you want to discuss the marriage license process being self sustaining, that's a whole other matter and your point likely holds true and I would agree with you over the point DS made.

 

[Babagounj]

so then the government must be on the right track by removing "father " and "mother" from future passports.
No more government sanctioned unions.
It's back to the 70's.
Free love for all,
do'nt worry about raising any rug rats, the state will handle that.

 

[klein]

One problem you forget wkmac, is the fact that many have married partners from outside the country.

All my 6 German aunts, they were all married to American Soldiers, and found their way to the US that way.
And even to this day, tons of people do the same.

How can you regulate that without government licenses ?
You know, it's hard to get that greencard..... and without a legal binding license, it would probably be more difficult.

I do agree with you on 1 point though, and that is NO tax reductions for married people. What for ?
With 2 incomes and only 1 household, they already benefit much more then the single person does.

 

[wkmac]

so then the government must be on the right track by removing "father " and "mother" from future passports.
No more government sanctioned unions.
It's back to the 70's.
Free love for all,
do'nt worry about raising any rug rats, the state will handle that.

Ah we have a statist who can't see the forest for the trees! What did they do before the State began to issue marriage license? Was there "Free Love" as you say? Was the family structure in shreds? Was mom and dad on prescription meds and little Johnny and Sally getting blasted from the family medicine cabinet? Yeah, I'm so glad we have gov't intervention to step in a save us from the stone age our forefathers and foremothers lived in!

Actually that is exactly (FREE Love) what is was if you can grasp the concept. Are you having a Klein moment?

 

[Babagounj]

before the state came the church , before that the village elders,before that the family unit.

 

[wkmac]

One problem you forget wkmac, is the fact that many have married partners from outside the country.

All my 6 German aunts, they were all married to American Soldiers, and found their way to the US that way.
And even to this day, tons of people do the same.

How can you regulate that without government licenses ?
You know, it's hard to get that greencard..... and without a legal binding license, it would probably be more difficult.

I do agree with you on 1 point though, and that is NO tax reductions for married people. What for ?
With 2 incomes and only 1 household, they already benefit much more then the single person does.

If I'm anti-state as in no state, wouldn't that suggest a solution to your borders dilemma?

Now that comment will likely send the lil' nationalists here over the edge!


BTW it's DEductions not REductions or is that a Canadian Tax thingy? And I do agree that eliminating the marriage tax deduction and just increasing the individual deduction to meet the same results would work and at least from the tax arguement, take the pressure off the the need for civil unions or marriage to be extended beyond it's traditional purpose as we know it. Most gays I've talked to have agreed in that case the need to extend so-called marriage rights to gays would be unnecessary and serve no purpose. Most of the arguement for has been around economics anyway.

But then again my ultimate aim is to end the entire income tax completely so once again problem solved!

 

[wkmac]

before the state came the church , before that the village elders,before that the family unit.

And why not let them go back to doing their traditonal role and job? Why the need for State intervention that causes all manner of sometimes intended and unintended consequences?

Serious question here and understanding that there is no perfect world, was the family unit in better shape 150 years ago or is it in far better shape today? There's an argument bothways obviously but most people would give pause to the family unit being tighter back then bacause they spent far more time with one another and worked with one another. Also a tighter bond to community was there as well. Wasn't perfect by any means as it never is or will be but outside unvoluntary interventions at the least were of a community nature and not from a force 100's if not 1000's of miles away. And from complete strangers too.

To me, there's a reason the Dunbar number works and yet society seems to start flying apart once that threshold is breeched and gone past and the farther past you go the worse it gets unless you find your self in control of it all. This is where tyranny breeds itself IMO.

 

[trplnkl]

If I'm anti-state as in no state, wouldn't that suggest a solution to your borders dilemma?

Now that comment will likely send the lil' nationalists here over the edge!


BTW it's DEductions not REductions or is that a Canadian Tax thingy? And I do agree that eliminating the marriage tax deduction and just increasing the individual deduction to meet the same results would work and at least from the tax arguement, take the pressure off the the need for civil unions or marriage to be extended beyond it's traditional purpose as we know it. Most gays I've talked to have agreed in that case the need to extend so-called marriage rights to gays would be unnecessary and serve no purpose. Most of the arguement for has been around economics anyway.

But then again my ultimate aim is to end the entire income tax completely so once again problem solved!

Ahhhh, but until our tax system and our entitlement give aways are changed, it is through licensing that it is partially controlled. I know, it isn't controlled all that well.

 

[moreluck]

Even our dogs are licensed.......but why not cats? Are cats second class citizens? Where is the rally for equal rights for cats??

 

[klein]

Our cats are licensed !

Pet Licence Fees

The pet licence fee structure encourages owners to spay or neuter their pets, to reduce the high number of unwanted cats and dogs.
If you are a senior citizen or on social assistance, you qualify for a half-price pet license. This rate applies to only one cat or dog per residence, and the pet must be spayed or neutered.

Pet Licence Fees 2011

Cats/Dogs
The first year license is free for your new spayed or neutered pet*

Spayed/Neutered cat $16
Spayed/Neutered dog $30
Non-spayed cat $70
non-neutered dog $70
Restricted dog $238
Replacement tag $6
Less than six months old Free

*The free first year licence does not apply to restricted dogs.

Licence Regulations



The following regulations apply to pet licences:

• Cats must wear collars with a City-issued licence tag or be permanently marked with a tattoo or microchip.
• Dogs must always wear collar tags.
• Collar tags are not stamped with a year and are not replaced annually, unless they have become illegible or are lost.
• The maximum number of pets allowed per residence is six cats and three dogs.
• You must be 18 or older to license a pet.

 

[moreluck]

OMG...I was joking !!

 

[klein]

C'mon now, there got to be US cities that do the same. Cats are a nuisance !

 

[over9five]

Our cats are licensed !



[*]Cats must wear collars with a City-issued licence tag or be permanently marked with a tattoo or microchip.

Luckily, my cat has an awesome tramp stamp.

 

[moreluck]

C'mon now, there got to be US cities that do the same. Cats are a nuisance !

None that I've lived in.............just dogs are licensed....but cats are good with gravy!

 

[klein]

City of Wayne (Mi) : cat licence required

City of Madison (Wi) : cat licence required

City of Las Vegas (Ne) : cat licence required

And I could go on and on..... just google "city cat licence"

 

[moreluck]

I haven't lived in any of those cities.